The Legality of Operation Geronimo

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Operation Geronimo, which aimed to assassinate Osama bin Laden (OBL), was conducted by the U.S. military forces under authorization from President Obama. The fact of assassination received much public approval in light of the fight against world terrorism and, namely, Al Qaeda. However, the legal context of the operation itself remains controversial from various perspectives, such as the U.S. Constitution, international laws and conventions, and, finally, the territorial integrity of Pakistan – the country of OBL’s last residence. Only a close inspection of these perspectives can provide proof of the operation’s actual legal authority.

Discussion

In a general sense, the U.S. Constitution understandably forbids any acts associated with assassinations. However, the situation surrounding Al Qaeda’s leaders cannot be dismissively generalized. The events of September 11, 2001, significantly altered the interpretation of the assassination ban imposed by the Constitution. In particular, joint resolutions passed three days after the catastrophe by the House and the Senate during the 107th Congress untied the President’s hands in light of the means to fight against international terrorism (107th Congress 2001a; 2001b). From that point onward, any counterterrorism efforts were allowed on the condition that associated intelligence and general operation conduct would be subject to constant legal oversight (107th Congress 2001a; 2001b). In this context, even a direct assassination can be authorized, given that Congress approves it complies with Federal law.

The second issue of the Geronimo operation was its compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL). Above everything else, it aims to protect soldiers and civilians during an armed conflict (Protocol I, 1977). The most controversial demand imposed by IHL is providing the option to surrender, which supposedly could be the case for OBL. Nevertheless, several factors indicate that the operation went entirely in the framework of IHL. Firstly, soldiers are not expected to offer the surrender option directly during the conflict (Protocol I, 1977). Secondly, the decision to conduct a raid instead of aerial bombardment showcases concern for civilians in the proximity of the battlefield (Presidential authority, n.d.). Finally, there was no evidence of issuing the order to refute the plea to surrender in the case it occurred.

The last concern regarding the operation’s legal framework refers to the illegal use of force on Pakistan’s territory, which violates its territorial integrity and political independence. According to Soherwordi and Khattak (2020), the fact of operation caused substantial public revolt and unrest. In addition, it led to several announcements by Pakistan’s government, including the protest at the National Assembly (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). In this context, there are several important peculiarities that can explain Pakistan’s reaction. For instance, despite the announcement, the Pakistani government did not proceed with the prosecution (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). Apart from that, the same reaction was evident after the U.S. operations that involved using drones on Pakistan’s territory. Finally, there is evidence of several conversations between the U.S. and Pakistani officials regarding the OBL issue that imply a secret deal between the countries (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). Therefore, the threat that Al Qaeda poses to the world proved to be more important and had to be dealt with as soon as possible.

Conclusion

Based on the pieces of evidence mentioned above, authorization of Geronimo’s operation can be considered legal. The constitutional ban on assassination has been elevated in the framework of the war against international terrorism. The norms and requirements imposed by IHL were considered and fulfilled during the operation. Finally, despite the public unrest, concealed agreements and consequent actions imply that OBL’s assassination was preemptively agreed upon despite the territorial issues.

References

107^th Congress. (2001a). S. J. Res. 23: Joint resolution. GovInfo. Web.

107^th Congress. (2001b). H.J.Res.64 – Authorization for use of military force. Library of Congress. Web.

Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. (1977). International Committee of the Red Cross. Web.

Presidential authority: Operation Geronimo case study [Course handout]. (n.d.).

Soherwordi, S. H. S., & Khattak, S. A. (2020). Operation Geronimo: Assassination of Osama Bin Ladin and its implications on the US-Pakistan relations, war on terror, Pakistan and Al-Qaeda. South Asian Studies, 26(2).

Click Here To Order Now!

The Legality of Operation Geronimo

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)